On June 7th the Irish electorate will go to the polls for the fifth referendum on an EU treaty since 1972. This referendum comes at a critical juncture in Ireland's membership of the EU and in the development of the Union. Up to now, successive governments found it relatively straightforward to chart the road map of engagement with the EU. The aim of national policy was "catch up" - to transform the Irish economy and to position Ireland in a European frame.
The policy choices that flowed from this were an emphasis on cohesion, the CAP and on protecting domestic policy choice in certain key areas, notably social regulation and corporate taxation. This was coupled with a cautious attitude towards the strengthening of EU institutions, but also a desire to participate as fully as possible in all facets of the European project. Ireland did not wish to be seen as an awkward partner.
The desire to "catch up" economically was a very strong motivator for Irish policy makers, but now that this has been broadly achieved, the direction is less clear. Where do we go from here? is a question facing those who are responsible for positioning Ireland in the EU system. Among Irish officials interviewed for a study on Ireland's management of EU business there was an acknowledgment that the signposts for EU policy were less clear-cut than in the past.
Uncertainty about Ireland's place in the EU system was also apparent in a number of ministerial speeches delivered by the Tanaiste, Mary Harney and the Minister for the Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Sile de Valera, in summer 2000. While offering support for enlargement, both ministers adopted a defensive approach to the future of the EU and Ireland's place in Europe. Given the material and political benefits that have flowed from the EU to Ireland since 1973, the speeches lacked a vision of Ireland's future role and lacked solidarity with the candidate countries, states that see Ireland as a model of successful small state adaptation to political and economic integration. The mixed messages on the EU from the Government over the last year may well have a negative impact on the electorate on June 7th.
The outcome of the referendum will have a decisive impact on Ireland's relationship with the Union and the member states. A No vote would provoke a ratification crisis and a crisis in Ireland's relationships with its partners and the candidate countries. A No would be interpreted as a No to enlargement and a No to the historic reintegration of the European continent. Rightly or wrongly, the Irish would be portrayed as a people who supported the EU while the financial benefits flowed, but refused to show solidarity with our neighbours to the east.
The Government would find itself having to search for a solution. Those advocating a No vote assume that a solution could be found relatively easily. This is not the case. The EU to date has never re-opened negotiations on a treaty. When, in 1965, De Gaulle wanted to alter the Rome Treaty, the other five refused. Likewise in Edinburgh in 1992, the Danish government was merely given clarification of the "opt outs" it had already negotiated. This enabled the Danes to have another referendum that resulted in a Yes vote. If the Irish vote No in June, considerable political and diplomatic energy will have to go intoconstructing a package that would allow the Government go back to the electorate some time in 2002.
In the meantime, Ireland's international standing would have been very badly damaged. A second No would change the core issue to one of Ireland's continuing full membership of the Union.
Even with a Yes vote on Nice, charting Ireland's future in the EU needs political attention and public debate. Three areas deserve special attention.
These are the future architecture of the Union, an assessment of Ireland's future policy on cohesion and the management of relations with Brussels and our partners. Between now and 2004, when the next EU treaty will be negotiated, there must be a debate in Ireland on the future architecture of the Union.
That debate is already advanced in a number of other member states, notably, Germany. The German chancellor and his foreign minister are advocates of a radical constitutional change in the Union. They argue it is time to re-configure the institutions of the Union. The Germans want to substitute the existing distinctive institutional relationships with those of a more traditional federation.
We in Ireland cannot ignore this discussion or respond to it in a reactive manner. Rather, we need to engage in a debate on what kind of constitutional order would serve the interests of small states and the Union's need for legitimacy and effectiveness. A public forum on the future of the EU and Ireland's place in the Union is opportune.
Apart from the macro constitutional questions, the Government needs to begin to think about how it is going to approach the future financing of the Union and its cohesion policies. Irish politicians and civil servants devoted considerable energy to ensuring that economic and social cohesion was inserted in the Single Act and built on in subsequent treaties. They also fought a hard battle to ensure that treaty provisions were backed up by hard cash. In turn, Ireland benefited from financial transfers from Brussels. After 2006 Ireland will become a "net contributor" and the new member-states will become the beneficiaries of Brussels largesse. The political instinct could well be to join the "net contributors" club and adopt a parsimonious attitude towards the EU budget. This would be a mistake. The EU budget is extremely small and I cannot envisage the political circumstances that would lead to massive increases in it. However, the size of the financial resources for regional policy are too small given the needs of the new member-states.
An Irish endorsement of more resources for cohesion would win it many friends in the new member-states and would be a policy position moulded by Ireland's experience of membership. The Irish exchequer would have to pay its share for any such increases but the prize would be a distinctive Irish niche in the Union.
Finally, a word on the management of EU business. The main strengths of the Irish system for dealing with Brussels in the past were flexibility and informality. The ease of personal contact and a high level of collegiality among the EU cadre in Irish central government lead to a culture of sharing information, consultation and "singing from the same hymn sheet". Good networking skills and a culture of pragmatism served the Irish well.
The Irish system, however, may not be suitable to an enlarged Union with many more interests jostling for position. The system of interdepartmental co-ordination is far too weakly institutionalised to be effective in a strategic sense. Moreover, the challenge for those representing Ireland is not just to define the Irish interest but to represent that interest effectively in Brussels. Inevitably this is more difficult in a Union of continental scale.
Coalition-building will become an even more prevalent feature of the Union. Successful coalition building requires the establishment and maintenance of multiple relationships with the governments and administrations of the partner countries.
This practice is known in the jargon as "multiple bilateralism". Such formal and informal bilateral contact is time-consuming and dependent on human resources. To date, the Irish engage in far less of it than their counterparts in other member-states. Part of the process of re-positioning Ireland in an enlarged Union should involve a careful analysis of the structures and processes for managing the Irish input into the EU system.
Brigid Laffan is Jean Monnet Professor of European Politics in UCD. Her study of Ireland's changing position in Europe will be published next month by the TCD Policy Institute.
